Agenda item

The Sub-Committee considered the report which sought consideration of a conviction by KH during the term of his Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver's Licence.

The Licensee was present and confirmed that he had read and understood the procedure for the meeting.

The Senior Public Protection presented the report and circulated the following documents to the Sub-Committee:

1.  A letter to KH from his legal representatives;

2.  A letter from KH’s legal representatives to Bristol Magistrates Court;

3.  Minutes of a previous meeting of the Sub-Committee at which KH had been given 4 penalty points for failing to declare a conviction during the term of his licence.

The Licensee and the Senior Public Protection Officer withdrew from the meeting for Members to have time to consider these.

When the Sub-Committee reconvened, KH made a statement and was questioned by Members. He then made a closing statement.

Following an adjournment, it was RESOLVED that KH’s licence be suspended for 6 months.

Reasons

Members have had to determine what action, if any, to take against the licensee having obtained a conviction during the duration of his licence.

In determining the matter Members had regard to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the Council's Policy, Human Rights Act 1998 and case law. Members noted that case law stated hearsay evidence is admissible, the merits of a conviction must not be reviewed or re-opened, the economic wellbeing of the applicant is irrelevant and when considering any action the protection of the public is of the utmost importance. Accordingly Members had to decide whether the licensee continued to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence taking into account all the circumstances including his driving history and character.

Members heard oral representations from Mr K H, read letters from his solicitors in relation to the conviction in question and read his statement. Mr K H indicated that he regrets his actions on the day in question and that it has caused him a lot of aggravation. He explained that his ASBO had been extended following that conviction and that he is subject to Supervision as part of his sentence. He told members that he had completed a psychology course in Bath as part of his Supervision which has enabled him to take on board the issues and co-operate with the Probation Service. When asked by members whether or not he was a fit and proper person Mr K H responded by saying that he had made serious attempts to stay away from the area in question and this is borne out by the fact that the one time he went through the excluded area he was caught. He describes the breach as a spur of the moment decision and was not pre-meditated. He informed members that he has made a conscious decision to avoid getting anywhere close to the excluded area and it is in his mind. When asked what he would do if a fare wanted him to go into the excluded area or the most economic route was to go through the excluded area he said he would have to drop them as close as he could and explain why he could not go into the area.

In summing up Mr K H said it is an ongoing problem linked to depression which is why he completed the course and has further courses to do. He said that he does not go to the area at all now and points to the fact that he was picked up so quickly on the occasion in question. Mr K H noted that he thinks the patience of Bristol Magistrates’ Court had run out and that so far they had been lenient.

The offence for which the conviction had been obtained was carried out when Mr K H was using his licenced vehicle. Members noted that this was the second occasion during the course of his licence where he had received a conviction and during the course of the last year.

The members noted that the Council’s policy was not of assistance on this occasion but had applied the “fit and proper” test.

The members observed that on the last occasion where Mr K H appeared before the committee it would have been disproportionate to suspend or revoke Mr K H’s licence. However, on this occasion based upon what members had heard and read members determined to suspend Mr K H’s licence for 6 months on the basis that his conduct had not been that of a fit and proper person, but revocation is seen as disproportionate. Members take the view that a period of suspension will deter Mr K H from misconduct in the future and bearing in mind his further period of Probation Supervision, where he told the committee he would be undertaking further courses to assist him to overcome his problems, he should once again be a fit and proper person.